1998
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0185(199807)251:3<316::aid-ar6>3.0.co;2-t
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dendritic arborization and spines of the neurons of the cat and human periaqueductal gray: A light, confocal laser scanning, and electron microscope study

Abstract: Neurons of the periaqueductal gray (PAG) have an extensive dendritic tree which plays an important role in the neuronal circuits supporting the functional activities of this region. The complexity of the local circuits is increased by the occurrence of dendritic spines. We have compared the dendritic and spine organization in the cat with that of man in order to verify whether an inverse relationship exists between dendritic tree extension and spine density and complexity. Sections of cat and human PAG prepare… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The spine density measured using this method, 2.6 spines/μm (figure 2A), was higher than is generally reported using Golgi staining or by filling MSNs with green fluorescent protein (GFP) that in the NAcore ranges from 0.8 to 1.2 spines/μm (Robinson et al, 2001; Kolb et al, 2003; Robinson and Kolb, 2004; Ferrario et al, 2005; Chen et al, 2008; Pulipparacharuvil et al, 2008; but see Norrholm et al, 2003), as well as table S1 for comparisons between studies). In part the higher density of spines measured in the present study is due to the fact that in previous studies spines in NAcore MSNs were quantified in 2 dimensions (Feldman and Peters, 1979; Gioia et al, 1998; Gan et al, 2000). However, figure 1E reveals that even if the Z stack was collapsed and DiI-labeled dendrites quantified in 2 dimensions, spine density was higher in DiI-labeled compared with Golgi-stained dendrites (1-way ANOVA F (2,52) = 85.62, p< 0.001).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…The spine density measured using this method, 2.6 spines/μm (figure 2A), was higher than is generally reported using Golgi staining or by filling MSNs with green fluorescent protein (GFP) that in the NAcore ranges from 0.8 to 1.2 spines/μm (Robinson et al, 2001; Kolb et al, 2003; Robinson and Kolb, 2004; Ferrario et al, 2005; Chen et al, 2008; Pulipparacharuvil et al, 2008; but see Norrholm et al, 2003), as well as table S1 for comparisons between studies). In part the higher density of spines measured in the present study is due to the fact that in previous studies spines in NAcore MSNs were quantified in 2 dimensions (Feldman and Peters, 1979; Gioia et al, 1998; Gan et al, 2000). However, figure 1E reveals that even if the Z stack was collapsed and DiI-labeled dendrites quantified in 2 dimensions, spine density was higher in DiI-labeled compared with Golgi-stained dendrites (1-way ANOVA F (2,52) = 85.62, p< 0.001).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…In order to construct 3-D images of cortical fields, 3-D images of the Golgi-stained tissue were acquired in reflected light mode using a 20× PLAPO NA 0.7 objective (633-nm light and a Leica SP5 AOBS microscope, Leica Microsystems, Bannockburn, IL) [62], [63]. Due to an approximately linear reduction in reflected light intensity with depth from the surface on the side proximal to the light source, it is only possible to collect data from an approximately 100- μ m-thick slab.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these images are not readily usable to construct 3-D models of neurons, due to significant interference from out-of-plane structures. Confocal images of back-scattered visible light [62], [63] shown in Fig. 2(d) and (e) demonstrate how the confocal technique can provide substantially improved through-plane image resolution, suitable for 3-D reconstruction procedures.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, a comparison of previous LM and EM studies (Gioia et al, 1998; Harris and Stevens, 1988) on spine density demonstrates that spine density quantifications at the LM level typically underestimate spine measurements at the EM level. Because the photoconverted MSNs traced and analyzed in this study are susceptible to the same resolution limits at the LM level as classical Golgi staining, these neurons were further processed for analysis at the EM level, to ensure that many spines were not going undetected.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%